Question :

 

Dear Dr. von Glasersfeld,
 

This past week I was at a Conference on Mathematics Education and a

speaker attributed a particular position to you about the idea of

metacognition. I have read many of your papers but cannot ever recall

you addressing metacognition – indeed, as a radical constructivist, I

would expect that your position would be to challenge the traditional

view of metacognition and argue that what others refer to as

metacognitve, can be explained in terms of reflection on results of

cognitive activity.

 

Have you discussed the term metacognition in any of your wirtings ? If

you have, please provide the source.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Vic Cifarelli

Dept. of Mathematics

UNC Charlotte

 

Answer :

Dear Mr. Cifarelli,

 

You are quite right: what people call "metacognition" are the products of

reflection on prior constructions. The term was created because

traditional psychologists wanted to get away from the notion of

reflection because it pointed towards Piaget. But - and this has to be

remembered - speaking of "reflection" does not explain much. It serves as

a theoretically useful link (not unlike gravitation in physics) for

something to which we can ascribe effects without having a model of how

it works; in this case, consciousness.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ernst von Glasersfeld